5.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Warszawa.
6.  The applicant is a co-owner of a plot of land in Poznań and a building situated on that plot. On 4 February 2000 the Poznań Mayor issued a building permit for spouses P., her neighbours and co-owners of that building, concerning an extension to it.
7.  On 12 June 2000, shortly after the construction works had started, the applicant requested the Mayor to have the works stopped, submitting that spouses P. had made changes to the original construction plans which had served as a basis of the building permit and of her agreement which had been a necessary condition for having the permit granted. The Mayor regarded her application as a request for the re-opening of the proceedings and refused it. The applicant appealed, submitting that the building permit had not been served on her properly and that, as a result, she had not been properly informed about the manner in which the future construction would affect the use of her property.
8.  On 29 August 2000 the Wielkopolski Governor quashed the Mayor's refusal and remitted the case, noting that the applicant had not been properly informed about the conditions of the permit which affected her situation. Spouses P. complained about this decision to the Poznań Administrative Court which dismissed their appeal by a judgment of 10 October 2001. The court noted that the applicant and spouses P. were co-owners of the building concerned. Therefore the fact that the applicant had not been properly informed about details of the building project had to be taken into account by the second-instance authority when deciding on her request to have the proceedings re-opened.
9.  Subsequently, by a decision of 5 June 2002 the Mayor refused to reopen the proceedings in which spouses P. had been granted the building permit, because the construction works had already been finished. The applicant appealed.
10.  On 26 July 2002 the Wielkopolski Governor quashed the Mayor's refusal and remitted the case, finding that the extension erected by spouses P. should have complied with an agreement which the applicant had concluded with them before they had applied for the permit.
11.  On 22 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint about inactivity on the part of the Mayor. On 5 February 2003 the Wielkopolski Governor found that the complaint about the inactivity was well-founded and ordered the Mayor to issue a decision on the merits of the case within one month.
12.  In the meantime, on 28 January 2003 the Mayor refused to set aside the building permit. The applicant appealed. On 27 March 2003 the Wielkopolski Governor allowed the appeal.  He noted that it had not been properly established in the proceedings whether spouses P. had informed the applicant about the technical conditions of the building project and whether the alterations made in the building on the basis of that project did not excessively affect the applicant's unhindered use of the property.
13.  On 28 April 2003 spouses P. appealed to the Poznań Regional Administrative Court.
14.  On 13 April 2005 the Poznań Regional Administrative Court dismissed their appeal. It observed that throughout the proceedings the applicant had been submitting that she had accepted the project on the basis of information provided by spouses P. that the roof of the planned extension of the building would be flat, while ultimately they had a sloping roof built. The applicant had reiterated that this had made impossible for her to proceed with her own extension plans. The court held that it had not been shown whether during the original proceedings which had led to the issuance of the building permit the applicant had indeed been properly informed about the technical details of the project.
 15.  In the meantime, on 7 April 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Administrative Court under section 5 of the Act of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (“the 2004 Act”).
16.  On 3 June 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed her complaint on the ground that there had been no undue delays in the judicial proceedings.
17.  On 31 January 2006 the Poznań Mayor refused to quash the building permit of 4 February 2000. The applicant appealed. By a decision of 8 March 2006 the Wielkopolski Governor set aside the decision of the Poznań Mayor, but refused to quash the permit, having observed that more than five years had elapsed since it had been issued. Hence, under the applicable laws it was impossible to set it aside.
18.  On 13 October 1999 the applicant requested the Poznań Mayor to issue a decision allowing for an extension of her house to be built. On 29 April 2003 the Poznań Local Government Board of Appeal upheld the Poznań Mayor's decision of 31 December 1999 given at the applicant's request.
19.  On 6 June 2003 the applicant appealed to the Poznań Regional Administrative Court. On 13 April 2005 the Poznań Regional Administrative Court dismissed her appeal.
20.  On 10 May 2005 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Administrative Court a complaint under the 2004 Act about the excessive length of judicial proceedings.
21.  On 24 June 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court allowed her complaint finding that delays in the proceedings had been attributable to the Poznań Regional Administrative Court. The court underlined that the lower court had not scheduled any hearings for over 12 months and pointed to the fact that the case had not been very complex. The court awarded her PLN 1,000 as just satisfaction.